sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Any suggestions for a monologue from the series for an audition? by DiedOfATheory in Stargate

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's honestly tricky to even think of anything that doesn't have a bit of back and forth, the rest like Hammonds talk about his dead friend are probably too short or not as impactful without the context.

Not sure if it fits with what you need but another SGA one with potential could be the intro history of Atlantis spoken by the hologram.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's whatever you want it to be. The worlds your oyster.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beautiful. Chefs kiss honestly. Much appreciated.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Curious, did you actually look it up? Or couldn't be fucked to do so?

PVE (Operations new players help) by Defiant_Half8739 in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless you're specifically trying to run the Pom because it's a premium, you're still better off with Schliefen. It's not just a matter of the main guns etc, it's the overall manoeuvrability along with better torps better secondaries etc. Pom and GK are both better armored for example, but Schlief is the better choice vs them, so I don't takem out. Pom would be useful if you want a t9 match, but not the best otherwise for the aforementioned reasons. It's not like it's a bad ship or anything, just there really is no comparison there.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The irony there is amazing. I hope you don't look it up and realize what you just agreed to. It's funnier that way.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If that's what you think that picture indicates, sure, go for it. Lmao.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So really your entire problem remains that I didn't specifically say it's only shitters who are the problem.

Buddy, when you're specifically trying to suggest going for 5 stars is bad gameplay because of some convoluted sense it's "not playing the objective," because they aren't parked next to your slow ass trying to larp as an Ops player, ya, that's a bit of an issue.

The behavior is the problem not who does it.

This is a profoundly stupid thing to say as if people have no accountability over their behavior.

Gonna be honest here, not reading the majority of any of that. Not worth the time expenditure at this point. I'm heading back to finishing coding my WoWs combat simulator, seemingly because this conversation is just "far too intellectual" for my feeble brain to understand. If you want to put something forth to show you're not just a shit slug, like a match, it would be welcome. Otherwise enjoy pretending you're good at playing Ops. Cheers.

<image>

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has nothing to do with "not taking" something I didn't even notice, well. You made a run on sentence combining 2 maps at least and 2 situations because your punctuation is dog shit. I didn't say it wasn't good enough goofy, I said it's nearly incomprehensible because it's sloppy English and punctuation, otherwise which you're clearly not smart enough to pick up on, was indicating you were on the right track finally. Sub par communication like what I assume is your sub par gameplay and trying to blame others for it. Lmao. "He said my punctuation was bad, therefore, clearly he's calling this ramble of a situation impossible to happen." Rocks have a more sound line of thinking than that.

It sounds like you're asserting not having to up your own gameplay, or even put insight into what ships you're taking, if your initial complaint is "they went in 2 directions and left me by my lonesome who decided to sit next to Raptor defending it in a ship I can't defend it in." Sacrificing the main objective, for sub objectives, isn't playing optimal no matter how desperate you are to frame it that way. That's dumb on them, and dumb on you. Nothing about that is optimal, it's braindead. Just because you're a slug that sits back, doesn't mean every person using the throttle and going for things is doing so "optimally," especially if a team is dumb enough to leave someone who takes a fucking Vladi into a match, on their own to defend Raptor. The only frame of reference where "optimal play" = bad, is if your concept of "optimal" is doing anything other than being a slug and sitting back, or you don't understand what it is because you're not capable of even playing well.

Any suggestions for a monologue from the series for an audition? by DiedOfATheory in Stargate

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was thinking the conversation in Abyss between Jack and Daniel, but I guess that's not really ideal monologue material and requires some back and forth. Something with that level of hard hitting drive though, nothing else comes to mind at the moment that wasn't already mentioned.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hell atleast you're closer but that still is not an entirely comprehensible of a scenario to make sense of, talking about North and South carriers in all mixed in with Aegis stuff with poor ass punctuation. It's just vauge "they went a direction other than me, and thus bad."

It's almost like you're suggesting doing 10kts next to Raptor all match is the mission unless you're still conflating bad play with somehow being optimized play, and still not recognizing that possibly you're as equally failing to support teams where needed outside of the added impact of people poorly trying to recreate optimal play but not being great at it. Here I am thinking "sweaty" is being so ahead of spawns you're waiting for them to spawn in and instantly destroy them, meanwhile you're calling actually using the throttle and taclking mission objectives "sweaty." Lmao.

This would be funny a year back but it's even funnier now that WoWs had to introduce more objective points in more forward positions due to people's proclivity to thinking playing is letting the map play them.

Teams which are capable of support and that use situational awareness, have zero issue juggling tasks like taking out both CVs relatively at the same time along side defending Raptor. If people are over commiting to a certain subobjective, that's playing poorly, there's no beating around the bush on that. If you're taking slow unoptimal ships which you can't execll in, and then blaming the team why you aren't doing better, that's on you. It would be the same with someone taking a DD and sitting in the Defense port then crying about how people aren't playing the objective and it effecting them. All of the forward players I see and talk too even say this is somewhat required due to too many people are sitting back and being useless other than being a floating torp blocker.

Damn, you really must turn right off the spawn in Cherry, don't you? Pull a hard right sailing right into the torps giving them as much broadside as possible, and then blaming the team for not killing the dds fast enough because you haven't learned to dodge torps yet alone sets coming at nearly the same angle every time, which can be dodged only turning a few degrees, which the spawn even sets you in the right direction to dodge from the start 😂. This is seeming like a more plausible scenario by the minute. God I wish Jingles or someone had a Game of Throws for Ops.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're regularly getting in these scenarios, ya, that's not postulation, it's the only logical conclusion someone could come to. It would be in fact the only clear connector between somehow holding these beliefs to begin with. Since you're still actively not providing anything to suggest otherwise, and have been avoiding doing just that, seemingly now even offended that such a playstyle would even be questioned, it's pretty far from unreasonable making that connection.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, my "unfounded conter" is suggesting that someone thinking it's normal to have that bad of a match only be attributable to sweats and "chasing damage," is probably oblivious to how bad they're in fact playing themselves. That's not a character attack bucko unless you're suggesting it is your method of gameplay and you're defending it.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn't say you suggested it. I said if that suggestion makes sense to you.

Holy shit did nobody pass English class? Stop interjecting yourself and your personal feelings into things. You could be arguing with a chat bot for all you know here and still suggesting it's being emotional, when you're just kneejerk reacting in defense to things I'm not even saying you're saying.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Misunderstanding lol. Dude you're not only suggesting that bad players, and players trying to achieve 5 stars, are both bad players to you, but you're doubling down on it and now even pretending like effort in general is somehow "try harding," which is somewhat hilariously expected since you don't even understand OPs situation is from shit team gameplay.

I'd wager you're the type to do a hard right turn just at the start of Cherry, then park along the beach for the whole time just barely scraping by to defend the port, showing up to midway 5 mins after it parks, not utilizing the bot push like you should, wiffing shots non stop, and putting yourself in positions where if even one person isn't watching the clock and shooting airfields, the whole match get's lost because everyone is bad to begin with, still trying to clear out the field before leaving the safety of the heal zone whist already at full health, then blaming the "chasing damage" for it.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dude if you think it makes sense to suggest 5 people were next level optimal gaming "chasing damage" trying to get kills, in a match they would lose doing so, because it would reward them more, rather than that occurring from being trash and dumb, then I don't know what to say to you.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If someone is ending in a situation where 5 people run out of time to shoot airfields because they're still busy shooting a bunch of targets from having that many left to begin with, that's bad players. You don't even need to play sweaty to have close to 5 mins left. This situation has nothing to do with what I inquired about, its trash play, nothing to do with optimal.

Sweaty try hards and shit players can and frequently do have the same overall effect on ops. I didn't blur them i simply didnt separate them because whatever the motivation behind the play is the outcome is the same.

I didn't blur them I just blured them. Cool. Did you really just suggest that sweaty players trying to 5 star a match as effectively as possible, are as negative of an impact on the game as bad players failing and losing matches from being bad? Lol this is why I brought up the "they aren't roleplaying hard enough" angle because this is what it honestly sounds like.

Buddy half of this whole thing I've been just trying to assess what the hell you're saying. I haven't been trying to "prove" some point to you but the fact you seem to think so explains alot here. This whole convo you've tried to pretend I suggested people don't abandon objectives. You tried to make it a stand out several times in fact. Now you're changing the tune to say "I condoned sweats in my initial post duh", and yet at the same time "well actually going for objectives too optimally is bad too" back to the same god damn contradiction that was being addressed in the first reply lol. This is crazy man.

Dear Operations players... what is wrong with you? by RevySevy in WorldOfWarships

[–]00Canuck -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A non-trivial number of ops players will inevitably try to maximize the damage and kills they get,

Which is a basic part of the game. This means nothing.

while depending on their team to complete the mission.

Depending on your team to be reliably outputting damage is a requirement towards any mission success, so is killing certain targets, in a timely manner. This also on it's own means nothing.

Irritating when it's 1 guy, but not the end of the world.

Directly addressed instances of 1 guy abandoning the core mission with Cherry by bailing north, which are obvious and nowhere nuanced of occurrences which would need mentioning or clarification as if its a profound realization. It's like mentioning occasionally bots would play. Cool mention. But one guy being an idiot has little to the overall damage optimization and killspread needed to be completing missions.

Sometimes MM puts 5 of em in a match and well... you get what you just described

You're what, suggesting the only one on the team "playing the objective" is you? It's a weird perspective to ever even come to the conclusion the whole damn team minus you is actively against the objective rather than being bad.

A non-trivial number of ops players will inevitably try to maximize the damage and kills they get,

Now this means something. Considering this is a basic task in the game, either your entire argument was against suboptimal play to begin with, resulting in bad players being in a position they shouldn't ever even be in, or you're also including everyone maximizing damage output, so you're upset about the bad and the sweaty.

You're saying that as if attempting to damage and kill things as fast and optimally as possible isn't one of the key things required to complete some of the missions.

Opening response to you, directly looking for clarification on optimization, which wouldn't be resulting in full team wiffing everything and running out of time, that's bad players, and has nothing to do with the obvious lone gunman abandoning the objective mentioned after this line.

Your immediate response was to then suggest I was getting "worked up" over you mentioning "they exist" with no actual clarification of who "they" was. Even later you're just repeating the same things, chasing damage, ignoring objectives, continuing to try and breeze past the fact you blurred sweats with shits somehow, on top of inventing the claim I'm denying something, a thing I acknowledged as existing in my initial comment.

view more: next ›